But what about the opposite?
Let's say a young lady gets pregnant and she doesn't want to have the baby, but the father does. She can get an abortion without a problem and the man has not legal standing to say otherwise.
But on the flip side (as we all know), if she gets pregnant and wants to keep it and he doesn't he is still "responsible for his choices" and must pay child support for the next 20 years even though he wasn't ready to be a father.
In my opinion, if a woman can get an abortion without the fathers consent, then a father should be allowed to opt-out of being a dad. In doing so, he wouldn't be responsible for child support and other responsibilities, but he would also be barred (for life) from being a part of that child's life. He wouldn't be allowed any visitation or legal standing as a father (i.e. taxes, student loans, ect.) without the mother's written consent.

I full heartily agree to this and wish my ex would opt out instead of messing our son around seeing him when he is told to by his nan, not really wanting to or anything. I just won't ruin,my relationship with my son by stopping him. :/

I agree entirely with this. I agree that it's "woman's body, woman's choice", but the man loses all choice in the matter because of it, and he's expected to support a child that he doesn't want to have. I think that if the mother wants to abort and the dad doesn't, she should have to carry it to term and give it to the father as well.

someone told me a story about their friend once, dude dropped out of college to get a job and save up for a house after learning he got his girl pregnant. some time into this the girl goes to see her mom and gets an abortion without the guys knowledge. as the story goes he tried to attack the bitch and the cop that was called to handle the situation didn't even want to arrest him after he heard why he was going after the girl, but of course he was arrested all the same. violence aside, i just think this goes to show that both sides need to have a say and be held responsible at all times.

There aren't many situations though where the man would want the kid and the woman would dislike having it so much that she would resort to an abortion. Usually, it's a matter of both of them wanting either way, or the man not wanting the kid while she does want it or at least doesn't want to go through an abortion.

The situation does not occur very often by comparison, and if it does, I imagine it happening more often in more backwater places where they feel abortion should be outlawed in general. Simply put, there's very few instances where the man actually would feel wronged by the abortion.

The reason I bring it up at all, is because it seems to me like the only reason why anyone would bring it up is to try to point out a double standard as though it happens all the time. I have never heard a single guy in real life claim he was wronged by a woman getting an abortion of his child, and only read about it in an article once on a headline. It's such an isolated incident.

2 of my good friends had this happen. They found out their girl was pregnant and both tried to convince them to keep the baby. It was sad to see how depressed they got when the girls got an abortion. It happens more often than you might think.

and i mean personally. not news or stuff, but really personally.
while only knowing one case of abortion where the guy convinced the girl.
and some cases in wich both simply thought it would be the best.

awesome point OP, i love seeing things from diffrent perspectives like that. you forgot one thing. The baby isnt isnt living in the mans uterus, tough ****, find a new woman who will have a baby for you.

While you have a valid point, you fail to see what chex was saying. If a woman can freely say I don't want your child and abort it on a whim, then she shouldn't be able to force the father into financial ruin either sheerly because he doesn't want to be a part of the childs life. That's just some double standards ********. It takes two to tango and both parties are responsible for the act of sex, not just the man.

Well the woman is the one who tears 3 inches bearing the child... Honestly, I think it's more of the woman's decision if she should have the child or not... The child is always more the mother's than the dad's. ****, the main difference between women and men is the fact that women have the brains and the body to take care of the baby. That's the way it's always been, really.

You've never even met a person who's been through childbirth, have you?
Just ask your mom if she remembers your childbirth (and that of any brothers/sisters) and she'll say "yes, and it hurt like hell"

check comment #97, of mrlaviano, he explains why women often choose for abortion instead of childbirth

I think the issue with the whole men being ale to opt out of being a dad thing is that from the moment that law passed there'd just be a **** ton of fatherless kids all over the country. After that, even more women would want to or have to get abortions just because they know they'd end up alone with that kid on welfare.

Its not the man's body. He doesn't have to go through morning sickness or any associated risks that come with pregnancy. Ultimately its the woman's body and her choice whether she wants a parasite growing inside her for nine months. That is why the man doesn't get a choice, because he doesn't have to carry it.

If you seriously use the term parasite for your baby you shouldn't have one. And you have to understand the consequenses of men not also haivng a choice. You are possibly ruining another humans life for years, and it's the things men has to put up with that's wrong when the woman chooses to keep it. It's not however, wrong that she has a choice. That needs to be kept.

Yeah seriously why do women not need the father's consent to have an abortion? It's like, females may be the ones who carry the child, but it's equally his child. His genetic material that has the potential of becoming a ******* human being, and she can just kill it no matter what he says? Total ********.

Because it is the woman's ******* body, not the man's.
I understand that the developing feotus is equally his, however he does not have equal right over the woman's body. That is for her, and her alone, to decide.

I don't think it's reasonable to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth, and therefore risk her health and even in some cases, her life. Pregnancy and birth usually isn't harmful, but there's always a chance, and vaginal tearing during birth is very likely. Plus, pregnancy can be a huge, huge hassle. If it were possible for the woman to let the man carry the child in his man-uterus, then it wouldn't be a problem. I somewhat agree, yet I somewhat don't, as I don't consider a fetus to be at all of equal value to a child, and therefore if a woman doesn't want it, she shouldn't have to suffer.

However, agreements should be available where the mother gets to ask the father for a certain amount of money to go through with it, and then allow her to not be part of the child's life.

If I got a girl pregnant and I wanted to go through with it and raise the child on my own, for whatever reason, I'd still be 100 % supportive if the mother opposed, and I would instead focus on getting someone, who also wanted a baby, pregnant. I think it comes down to the same thing as the abortion debate in general--whether or not you consider an early-stage fetus to be of value. If you see it as something precious and already consider it your child, then sure, you're probably going to want to keep it, but I think very differently about it.

I can think of 2 big reasons. 1. Rape. She might not want to admit that she was raped and the only way for her to not bare the child of a rapist would be to abort it even without his consent. 2. There is a chance that the woman could die while giving birth.

Well of course if it's rape then he would have no right to tell her what to do with it. And there's a chance you could die while walking down the street in the middle of the day too, but you still do it. It's not like dying in childbirth is the norm.

In this universe where the woman needs the father's consent to have an abortion, the rapist would be the father and he could not give her consent to have an abortion. Do you understand what I am saying here? Maybe I am not making myself clear about this. The woman does not want to bare the child of a rapist, the father is a rapist, and she does not want to tell everyone that he is a rapist. Since she does not tell people that he raped her, he is still able to force her to give birth to his child.

How about we compare it to something a bit more painful, like taking a **** after eating really spicy food. Imagine this situation: You are a woman and you know that in 9 months you will have to take a painfully spicy ****. You do not want to do this because it hurts and has a chance to kill you. The man who caused this to happen to you, refuses to let you prevent this **** from happening because he wants to keep the **** even though you don't but the process of taking that **** has 0% chance of death or pain to the man.

Oh, for **** sake, like it would be hard to define another paragraph in the law that makes rape exception from "fathers consent". Thats precisely the thing for which we have ******* courts.
He's got a valid point, stop nitpicking it when there's an obvious solution to it.

Yeah I suppose that when a condom breaks, the person wearing that condom is very stupid. How could he not know that the condom would break? What an idiot. I am being sarcastic. I hope you understand how ridiculous that sounds.

Dear lord... your logic is unquestionable. You are truly a master of wits, congratulations on the victory. Sarcasm, again, just in case you didn't catch that, you're pretty stupid. I will most likely not respond to your next message, please do not get offended.

im guessin you dont have much contact with condoms then since you believe they break and that people get pregnany from this regularly. this happening is like one in a million, and thus its a special case, and then its even more special cause the mother wants the abortion while the dad wants to keep it. its so rare in fact that you shouldnt make up rules or philosofies around it

Nice job pulling that 'one in a million' out of your ass.
Typical use of a condom has an 82 to 90% chance to prevent pregnancy.
It's not at all uncommon for a couple who used a condom to still conceive a baby.

typical idiot not using it right then i suppose, where did they get this information anyway? did they ask around "hey dude does your condoms work right? usually man, but every fifth time the gf gets preggo"

And again, you didn't ask a real doctor or read the ******* packaging. Go pick up a random box of condoms and read what's on the piece of paper inside, it will tell you that condoms will fail more than you think

You only need parental consent to do anything if you're under 18, in which case you shouldn't be having sex anyways (except in countries where the legal age is lower). I was agreeing with you on the first one, a man should not be able to force a woman to have a child that was the cause of rape.

And that's not really a valid analogy, because no one wants to keep a ****. It's his child too, and if the sex was consensual she knew the risks just as well as he did. It's like if you buy a house and both your names are on the paperwork, one of you can't make a decision to sell the house without the other's consent.

But to add points against your argument. Its the females body that is going to affected by the birthing, not the male.
- Bloodshot eyes, facial bruising and muscle/joint pain will occur after birthing.
- Stretch marks that will NEVER FADE COMPLETELY. These can be red/purple/pearly white for the rest of their lives.
- Breast pain due to engorgement , cracked nipples. (requires cream and antibiotics)
- Fevers, chills, inflammation, difficulty passing urine, disgusting vaginal odor, lack of appetite, hot flashes, night sweats, and dry skin which could be an indication of an infection or circulation problem.
- Decreased libido, lack of vaginal lubrication
- Wild mood swings, which can lead to post-partum depression (thoughts of suicide, insomnia, panic attacks.) Which can last up to 12 months.
- Urinating/******** can vary from painful to uncomfortable. Two weeks of bleeding with small clots, then later bloody discharges.
- No sex for weeks highly recommended to avoid any problems.
- Pelvic bone injuries that can occur, takes months to get better.
- And of course the possibility of death.
(correct me if i'm wrong on any of these)

But i can see your point of view. I would be devastated if i wanted to keep the baby and she wants to get it aborted. But the fact that she has to go through all of the above, just so i could have a child is just selfish. I would never want someone to go through that just for another's desires.

plus the time she won't be able to work and potential change of habit in her life.

It's suck for us that the women is the only one who decide if she's gonna have the child or not. But the alternative (forcing an human to go through a ******** of physical/mental/financial pain) is unacceptable imho.

Alright, I have no idea how you misunderstood me this badly. Re-read what I wrote except this time, you should know that when I say "father" I mean the father of the baby not the father of woman having the baby. And you also completely missed my point somehow which is this: In this universe, society cannot stop a man from forcing a woman to have a child that was the cause of rape because the woman is not admitting to being raped.

First of all, the analogy is completely valid because even though it's **** instead of a baby, the point is that the woman doesn't want it, the man wants it, and the woman bares 100% of the risk of injury. Secondly, having sex and co-signing for a house are completely different. I honestly cannot even comprehend how someone could see the two as being similar unless you're so young and innocent that you don't realize how much casual sex goes on in the world.

I know your pain. My mom will ask me what I did, and on those few days when I actually have a story to tell, I get half way through before she breaks in mid-sentence to ask something completely unrelated, often not even to me.

Quit trying to twist ****. I'm not saying we should force women to carry.
My point is, I don't think you can force a man to pay child support for a child he doesn't want because you can't force a woman to carry a child that she doesn't want.

Wait, I see the issue. chexlameneux never brought up the vague possibility of forcing the woman to carry. xcoreyx did, which is why I got confused reading through this, but he only did after your replies. So while it's true he's arguing a topic you didn't mention, you're also arguing a point that he never made. ****** getting confusing.

chexlameneux's first point wasn't saying that women should be forced to carry at all, he merely bringing up the fact that they can make a choice while men cannot.